From Beirut to Kuwait: A History of Arab Cross-Border Movement
Introduction
Every now and then, a vintage photograph of a Beirut taxi from the 1970s surfaces online to the awe and surprise of many. For viewers of this photo, this was not just any taxi, it was one that traversed routes between Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Kuwait. This vehicle, the likes of which appear extinct in the present day, is now seen as an heirloom, evidence of a time when the travel landscape among Arab cities was more accessible. Wherever it is published, the photo triggers a dichotomous emotional response.
While some common understandings suggest that Arab intra-regional transport prospered before falling into obsolescence, it is more accurate to say that its state fluctuates in line with changing circumstances in an ever-dynamic regional landscape. This Essay examines these interconnected and overlapping processes to study cross-border transport modes in a more critical light. In doing so, it attempts to show that Arab mobility is intimately and intricately enmeshed within broader political and historical dynamics. In situating transport connectivity within these contexts and viewing these infrastructures as “contested spaces” rather than just simply “connectors between places,”1 we can adopt a generative approach to building better mechanisms of advancing connectivity between Arab cities going forward. Additionally, this Essay sheds light on how colonial developments on this front did not take place in a vacuum nor without the involvement of local actors, emphasizing the need for critical narratives that reveal some of the more menacing sides of the exploitative nature of colonial railways at pivotal moments in the region’s history. This raises important questions regarding how these developments benefited the local populations, a consideration that should be central to any transport development approach more broadly.
Movement Lines & Colonial Roots
Early transport infrastructures in North Africa, the Levant, and the Arabian Peninsula shared deep ties with the colonial presence in the region. Since the 1850s, colonial entities have actively shaped the development of transport infrastructure, viewing it as an effective tool to widen control over the colonies and expand political and commercial influence. In this pursuit, colonial powers such as France reinforced their presence in Algeria through the establishment of railways.2 Early railway developments in North Africa are illustrative of this. Initiated during the reign of Napoleon III, the railways in North Africa were described as a ‘colonizing river,’ and by the end of the 1880s, railways in Algeria connected Morocco and Tunisia.3 A considerable portion of the colonial budget was directed towards railway developments that served as a powerful instrument to implement colonial land policies and as a result, this heavily influenced economic development throughout the region.4 These infrastructures catered chiefly to French military use and mineral extraction rather than the movement of the population.5 This is exemplified in Algeria, where France had allowed various companies to build different segments of the rail. The lack of coordination between these companies meant that passengers sometimes faced the inconvenience of switching trains multiple times to reach their destinations when going from Western Algeria to Tunis.6
In the Levant, the economic decline of the Ottoman Empire (c. 1300-1922) opened doors for European actors to realize their aspirations of railway construction.7 Aligned with its ambitions to expand railways, the Ottoman Empire granted railway concessions to Britain, France, and Germany.8 These railway projects captured the lion’s share of foreign investments in the empire,9 but their legacy is debatable. Like in North Africa, French railway construction in the Levant advanced colonial interests. By the turn of the twentieth century, France managed five railroad lines including highly-important routes like the Beirut-Damascus-Muzeirib line and the Jaffa-Jerusalem line.10 The latter, built in the 1890s, is viewed as having been constructed to expand French and European trade and influence, rather than to ease indigenous populations’ travel and movement.11
Conflicts and rivalries, both internal and foreign, have been at the heart of railway developments in the Middle East. These issues accompanied early transport from their initial conception as engineering plans to the start of their services, and chief among them was the competition to win railway concessions.12 A prime example is the Baghdad-Berlin railway project, for which Germany procured concessions in the early 1900s. Feeling threatened, the French and the British did not allow the line to interfere with their own railway lines.13 Britain feared Germany’s expansion into its spheres of influence through the railway reaching Basra in the south of Mesopotamia;14 so intense was the railway rivalry between the two that some even believed it was one of the causes of World War I.15 After facing various disturbances, the Baghdad-Berlin railway was completed in the 1940s during World War II.16
Wartime shone a light on the significance of railways. During both World Wars, railways, like the Baghdad and Hejaz railways, transported goods and military troops across the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula.17,18 During World War I, railways were so crucial to the war effort that both Britain and France, while engaged in an active war, allocated efforts to building new lines in North Africa and the Levant.19,20 However, in Tunisia, military usage wore down railways, making many miles of rail unsuitable for use.21
Spearheaded by the Ottoman Sultan Abdelhamid II, the Hejaz Railway was a major project aimed at facilitating the arduous pilgrimage journey to Makkah. Although it was intended to connect Istanbul and Makkah, the line only traveled between Damascus and Madinah due to interruptions caused by World War I, which involved approximately 700,000 workers.22,23,24 Despite this, nearly 300,000 passengers had used the route annually by 1914.25 Crossing a large swathe of land, which corresponds to modern-day Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, this strategic railway was the subject of conflict between Faisal Ibn Al-Hussein, the son of Sharif Hussein of Makkah, and the Ottoman authorities.26 Prior to this, the railway had been contentious to some indigenous groups, notably the Bedouins, whose livelihoods of transporting pilgrims were threatened by the faster train.27 While these groups had at times assaulted the train, the Hejaz Railway became a primary target of attack, famously led by T. E. Lawrence, a British army officer in the Middle East and an ally of Sharif Hussein.28 Using British supplies, Sharif Hussein’s forces destroyed “a total of 28,692 rails, 15 train engines, 29 trucks, and 207 bridges, all operated and controlled by the Turkish soldiers.”29 The destruction was so severe that the railway was largely abandoned in the aftermath of the attack.30 In a powerful reminder of the significance of railways to the establishment of power, the demolition of the Hejaz Railway was a decisive blow to Ottoman rule, marking the end of its influence in Syria and the Hejaz and paving the way for greater British and French interests in the region.31
The vulnerability of transport infrastructure in times of conflict has repeatedly been evident. Palestine Railways, a company that was set up during the British mandate, was devastated during the establishment of Israel in the 1940s.32 Its Ottoman-era infrastructures that connected Palestine to present-day Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were largely destroyed during this time.33,34 Threats to transport infrastructure re-emerge during times of political turmoil today. Recent wars in Lebanon and Syria, for example, have severely stymied these countries’ transport infrastructures and their potential to connect to their neighbors.35,36 Transport infrastructures are both important and sensitive to their contexts and surroundings. Cross-border transport, by definition, expands beyond territorial boundaries and is delicately impacted by conditions not only at its destinations but also in the spaces in between. This serves as a somber reminder of the need for more resilient transport infrastructure to cater to local populations, even in the present day.
Territorial Changes & Challenges
Capitalizing on the empire’s dissolution, Britain and France partitioned the former Ottoman territories and established boundaries around them. The emergence of borders in the region, as well as the practices of bordering that accompany them, became increasingly relevant to travel in the post-World War I Ottoman territories. In addition to colonial interests and political turmoil, territorial changes have profoundly shaped cross-border transport modes. Modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan were declared as mandates, territories governed by Britain and France.37 New “borders drawn with little attention to nomadic people’s movement, ethnic or religious boundaries, or nationalist movements outside of the state”, were a crucial technique of this period.38 While their effects unfolded gradually, with locals challenging these boundaries,39,40 the borders played a notable role in reshaping relations and realities across post-Ottoman territories, including in areas such as transport, travel, and mobility.41 Borders materialized and gained relevance not merely through lines drawn on maps, but largely through bureaucratic practices, border checks, and inspections, which became more commonplace in the 1920s and 1930s.42 Accounts of Gulf traders from this time reveal that documentation, such as passports, was needed to travel between Egypt and Palestine.43 Contrary to popular perceptions, inspection rounds and border posts were already being established along some transport routes in the region at this time.44
However, this change alone did not predetermine the stifling of cross-border transport. Instead, the border itself should be considered a process of bordering. Historian César Jaquier refers to the border as “adjustable and redefinable”, a “living reality, and a social institution which is (re) built over time, contrary to the narrative which holds that today’s Levantine frontiers were determined by a stroke of the pen with the signing of the Sykes-Picot agreement.”45 Keeping this in mind allows us to note how borders and their meanings change over time in relation to other circumstances and factors. In their early days, borders between Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq were often permeable and did not necessarily hinder the travel of people. In other words, borders can be thought of as “filters,”46 as Jaquier describes, ones that enable the mobility of certain groups, while impeding those of others who are expected to have “no economic or political advantage.”47
At the same time, the appearance of borders instigated new economic and political realities, transforming “what was once an imperial geography of mobilities and interconnections into a distinctly national one.”48 Such a monumental redefinition of territory brought with it new processes like the nationalizing of economies. Newly imposed tariffs discouraged transport modes, such as bus companies, from maintaining their cross-border routes.49 The nation-state began to take precedence over other types of relations, as César Jaquier described in an interview I conducted for this Essay.50 Previously integrated economies began to diverge as nascent nation-states focused on their national economic development.51,52 The establishment of borders also gave birth to new political realities, mainly observed in Palestine since 1948, creating significant disruption in the cross-border movement of people.53 Although the introduction of borders under mandate authorities radically altered the landscape, this period still reflected a continuation of the Ottoman-era colonial transport interests. Mandate authorities continued to define and influence transportation networks in Iraq and the Levant, in addition to their surroundings. French Mandate authorities had road-building programs in the Levant,54 while Britain planned to develop transport links between the Arabian Gulf and Palestine to protect its interests in India.55 Such developments extended the authorities’ control over land through the expansion of road networks. Modern transport at the time increasingly intersected with European imperial expansion and their interests in creating “new regional business empires.”56
The emergence of borders posed challenges to the mobility of many groups of people,57 but it by no means ended the centuries-long traditions of regional travel. Instead, it reshuffled and modified how and who can cross-border travel. While borders were drawn during this time, freedom of transit for economic purposes was promoted across the mandate territories, ensuring economic access.58 Indeed, the interwar period witnessed a proliferation of road and transport infrastructure, and an intensification of mobility,59 connecting the former Ottoman territories. This reveals that it is not borders alone that block movement, but the policies surrounding them. Nowadays, we are witnessing two distinct trends in the region. The first is an integration model, where the Gulf countries are discussing a common visa for freedom of travel policy within the GCC countries.60 The other trend is a restrictive model followed by some countries, such as Egypt and Sudan.61 Local populations are often the most impacted by changes to cross-border transport and travel. One example is tribal groups whose movement was affected by the imposition of border practices.62 Yet, despite being impacted by territorial changes, political turmoil, and colonial dominance, local populations were also at the helm of many cross-border transport developments. It is to their stories and experiences that I now turn.
Local Participation & Experiences
Local actors, from the previously mentioned Bedouins to traders, have been vital to cross-border travel since the advent of modern transport in the Ottoman-era Middle East and continue to play a significant role today. In the Levant, local merchants recognized that increased transport activity could support and boost the economies of their cities.63 Striving towards this goal, they collaborated with each other and with other players, such as the French, who were simultaneously invested in regional transport development. In the 1890s, a notable figure from Beirut, Hassan Bayhum, took the initiative to build a rail link between Beirut and Damascus, and received a concession from the Ottoman authorities in Istanbul to do this.64 Bayhum later sold this concession to a French naval officer, who completed the project in 1895.65 As the local merchants had anticipated, the opening of the Beirut-Damascus link brought prosperity to Beirut and ballooned its population.66 In the early 1900s, the strategically located port city was selected by the Ottoman authorities to be the Hejaz Railway’s connection to the Mediterranean Sea.67 The railway project provoked waves of migration into the city and attracted investors from nearby cities and regions to Haifa. There, they opened factories and shops, contributing to the city’s growth.68 Yet, in other cases, colonial plans thwarted the wishes of local populations. Jaquier shared that, in Mosul, locals repeatedly called for a rail link with Aleppo, but the British opposed it, fearing it would benefit other competing colonial entities.69
The appearance of motorized transport further expanded the role of local actors and entrepreneurs and scaled up transport accessibility to a wider range of passengers. From the 1920s onward, motor transport companies proliferated due to their relative ease and lower costs compared to their larger railway counterparts.70 The most notable of these was the Nairn Company, led by two New Zealander brothers. Although the Nairns already had some experience in the Middle East, they set up their company with the support of a family from Beirut.71 The company was commissioned by the mandate authorities to conduct a feasibility study of a car service across the Syrian desert in 1923.72 Once this route was opened, and regular automobile services began between Baghdad and Damascus, local support continued to uplift the Nairn Company. This time it was in the form of vehicle protection as the Nairn cars traversed the desert between Baghdad and Damascus, provided by the men of a trader from Unayzah in modern-day Saudi Arabia.73 It can be argued that this collaborative effort from various actors contributed to the service’s vitality and robustness. The direct service was so highly regarded that King Faisal I of Iraq (r. 1921-1933) inaugurated it himself.74 By 1925, thousands of vehicles were making the trip, transporting approximately 11,255 passengers.75
Not long after, local entrepreneurs launched similar services to that of the Nairns, leading to an increase in the number of motor transport companies, such as the Kettaneh brothers’ Eastern Transport Company, the Kawatly Tawil Company, and the Makhzumi Company.76 Competition and collaboration characterized this period. Although the Nairns and the Kettanehs were competitors, members of the Kettaneh family had in fact accompanied the Nairns on their initial feasibility study of this route.77 Mandate authorities initially subsidized these transport companies to further their own trade, but later regulations stipulated that only big companies could receive subsidies.78 Jaquier describes that, as a response, some entrepreneurs from Syria and Iraq merged their enterprises into a single amalgamated company, allowing them to keep a considerable portion of the market into the late 1930s.79
Notwithstanding external support, locals set up various motor transport ventures. In Palestine, a national bus company was launched,80 as well as an independent service run by local businessman Abdul Hai Shaheen. His company, established in 1960, operated locally around Al Khalil (Hebron) and eventually expanded regionally reaching Jordan and Kuwait.81 Another transport company model included single-car travel services. Individual entrepreneurs, such as Habib Sabet from Iran, purchased a car in Beirut and used it to offer a transport service between Tehran and Baghdad in the 1920s.82 Business models like this spread throughout the region and continue to this day, particularly between neighboring countries such as Jordan and Syria.
Travel accessibility increased due to the proliferation of transport companies and their competitive fares. Focusing on the Baghdad-Damascus route reveals a diverse cross-section of passengers, including politicians, civil servants, tradesmen, intellectuals, pilgrims, and tourists.83 This buzz of travel had social and cultural effects. According to Jaquier, journalists who documented their trips along this cross-border
route contributed “new conceptions of regional space, a space that extends beyond the borders of the nation-state.”84 Increased intra-regional travel and mobility thus generated new modes of belonging, countering the previously mentioned nationalizing of space. Despite this, not all travellers or destinations were treated equally. While tourists and elite members of society from some countries were welcomed, other social groups or individual persons were rejected if deemed to be a potential threat or burden.85 Additionally, while towns, like Aley and Bhamdoun, prospered and became vibrant summer resorts for tourists from near and far,86 others on less traversed routes faced challenges and went into decline.87
Nevertheless, the convenience of motor transport and its increased popularity overshadowed other alternatives, both modern ones like trains and centuries-old caravans. For a window of time, these diverse modes of transport co-existed with one another providing various options for intra-regional travel.88 Until the mid-20th century, merchants, travelers, and pilgrims across the region had the option of traveling by camel, bus, car, train, and steamship using these different modes as needed and where available.89 But over time, the car became the most prominent choice of travel, a status symbol for those who could afford it.90 The challenges of its use, such as difficulties navigating the terrain and drivers’ lack of expertise in vehicle maintenance, did not curtail its growth. In some cities and contexts, individual drivers rented taxis and offered cross-border journeys between neighboring countries. This service is still sometimes considered more convenient and flexible than buses or trains with fixed schedules, though it remains vulnerable to political turmoil and conflicts. These glimpses underscore the roles of local populations in the shaping of cross-border transport from establishing transport companies to influencing changing consumer trends. Learning from these local perspectives and experiences is crucial for building sustainable cross-border transport infrastructure that can maintain its relevance
despite changing realities.
Conclusions
Various processes on multiple scales shape intra-regional transport. Understanding these dynamics highlights the constantly changing nature of mobility, and allows us to examine and intervene in it through a nuanced and constructive way. This Essay has sought to address this through four factors: colonial history, political turmoil, territorial changes, and local experiences. However, these are only a handful of a variety of other factors and lenses that could be studied in relation to this subject.
Through this analysis, this Essay reveals the gaps in popular perceptions that relegate cross-border transport to the status of a relic of the past. Instead, intra-regional transport has always been and continues to be influenced by structural factors, historical and political circumstances, and domestic trends. Jaquier asserts that these processes of globalization and connectivity in the region are not linear, that “sometimes, there are reversals and de-connections.”91 Cross-border transport is neither an obsolete project nor a long-gone golden era that ended with the increased securitization of borders and the ongoing series of wars and conflicts plaguing the region, as some popular perceptions often suggest. Rather, it is a dynamic process subject to various changes. This research shows that as early as the 1920s, inspections and checks were required for travelers, contrary to some popular beliefs. Similarly, while intra-regional transport was disrupted by the introduction of borders and with the security challenges in some areas of the region, it was not doomed by these events. On the contrary, intra-regional transport has seen notable attempts at revival despite these dire circumstances.
Lebanon and Iraq, two countries that have suffered decades of conflicts and political challenges, clearly demonstrate this. In Lebanon, even during the Civil War (1975-1990), efforts were made to keep the railways operational.92 In 1991, the Peace Train was inaugurated between Lebanese cities, and in less than two months of operation, it transported almost fifteen thousand passengers.93 Later, in 2002, there were attempts to connect Lebanon and Syria, but these efforts were ultimately abandoned.94 Similarly, in Iraq, various episodes of violence and conflict did not stop efforts and calls for reconnecting the country through rail.95 Railway connections between Iraqi cities were resuscitated after the destruction caused by the 2003 American invasion, only to be impacted again with the rise of ISIS. Today, these connections are experiencing renewed interest from government entities and locals alike. Railway infrastructure in these countries and elsewhere can reduce car dependency, but different challenges such as lack of political will, state support, and funds have repeatedly halted these efforts.96
On the regional scale, a notable call for connected transport infrastructure came from the Arab Railway Union in the 1990s. At the time, fewer than a dozen countries had operational national railways; these were Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia, totaling around 25,000 km.97 The Union conducted a study to connect these railways and its findings were subsequently adopted by the Council of Arab Transportation Ministers under the Arab League.98 While this initiative appears to have been neglected, it reflects some of the challenges facing the establishment of intra-regional transport infrastructure. Obstacles included the lack of political will and collaboration, in addition to the prioritization of car infrastructure, to name a few.99 The Secretary General of the Arab Union of Railways at the time also emphasized financial challenges, and the tendency of international organizations, particularly the World Bank, to finance highway construction over railways.100
Investing in such a project can unlock plenty of social, environmental, and economic opportunities for the populations across the region. Lebanon-based NGO Train/Train recognizes these benefits that can be reaped from reviving and invigorating intra-regional transport. For years, this organization has advocated for the rehabilitation of train infrastructure in Lebanon, leveraging the country’s vibrant history of transport infrastructure and raising awareness of their enduring contemporary relevance through multiple forums and initiatives. In an interview for this Essay, Train/Train’s president Carlos Naffah underscored the importance of railway development to improving regional connectivity, stressing that the resilience and growth of the region hinge upon this.101 He also warned that a lack of regional connectivity is a loss on multiple scales, the local, regional, and global.102
In recent years, some regional actors have unveiled plans to develop railway infrastructures. In 2019, a high-speed train project to link Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia was revealed.103 Efforts to connect Gulf countries by rail have also been announced,104 as well as an extensive rail project to reconnect Iraq with its neighbors.105 According to Naffah, actualizing these projects and achieving improved intra-regional transport would require good governance and transparency, as well as broader understanding that reinserts the history of intra-regional transport and particularly railways into the collective memory.106 What remains to be seen is how these infrastructures will address the needs and aspirations of the local populations. The nostalgic remembrance of past travel is a call for more accessible, people-centered intra-regional transport. Ensuring that new developments prioritize and involve locals is essential to their sustainability and endurance amid inevitable changes. Such an approach can only inspire further interest in the region, and its wealth of destinations.
